Standing Committee E

[Mr. Derek Conway in the Chair]

Housing Bill

Derek Conway: I congratulate the Committee on reaching a quorum on such a cold day. Everybody has got here with their snowboots on.Clause 66 Selective licensing of other residential accommodation

Clause 66 - Selective licensing of other residential accommodation

John Hayes: I beg to move amendment No. 307, in
clause 66, page 44, line 18, leave out 'reasonable time' and insert 
 'timescale specified by the appropriate national authority'.

Derek Conway: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 302, in 
clause 67, page 44, line 25, leave out 'met.' and insert 
 'fulfilled, in addition to meeting the requirements that will be established by the appropriate national authority regarding the requirements of subsections (2) and (9).'.
 Amendment No. 303, in 
clause 67, page 45, line 27, leave out 'take reasonable steps' and insert 
 'undertake the process, outlined by the appropriate national authority'.
 Amendment No. 304, in 
clause 76, page 51, line 9, leave out paragraph (c) and insert— 
 '(c) the guidance on fitness tests supplied by the appropriate national authority.'.
 Amendment No. 291, in 
clause 69, page 46, line 11, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert 
 'it complies with general criteria laid down by the appropriate national authority.'.

John Hayes: It is, as you say, Mr. Conway, a cold day, but I hope that relations on the Committee will not be frosty. From this point on, any similes or metaphors on that note ought to be declared out of order—although far be it from me to second-guess your judgment, Mr. Conway.
 The Minister replying to the debate will, no doubt, describe the background to the clause, but essentially we continue to deal with selective licensing issues associated with houses in multiple occupation. These important amendments are designed to ensure consistency in the application of the provisions. Perhaps we are becoming a little boring on that subject—''No!'' I hear Committee members say, ''That is not possible.'' I assure them that it is; almost constantly, I have to guard myself against being boring. We have repeatedly emphasised that consistency is essential in the application of these important provisions. I am concerned that, if the 
 amendments are not made, consistency will not be guaranteed. 
 In addition, in tabling amendment No. 301, we were anxious to ensure that the appropriate person should be dealt with in relation to licensing. Let me paint the Committee a picture. If an owner of property has entrusted ownership to a manager, that manager should be responsible and should play a role— 
The Chairman rose—

John Hayes: But we will come to those matters later, Mr. Conway. I mention them now because if we have inconsistent application of licensing, we could end up in the curious situation in which different rules apply to an owner with different managers—for example, an owner who uses different management agencies to run properties in different areas . The confusion that would result from inconsistency would be highly undesirable in terms of ensuring that the Bill is received well and is implemented effectively.
 To achieve the objective that I describe, we suggest that the national authority should play a bigger part. There will be those who say that that would be injurious to the principles of local democracy, and I can see that argument welling up on the lips of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey). Had he not so assiduously already written his speech, I could almost do it for him, but I do not underestimate the assiduity of the hon. Gentleman. He is smiling benignly, so I assume that he disagrees with nothing that I have said. 
 The argument for local diversity and discretion is less persuasive than the argument for the need to ensure that the legislation is consistent. The arguments are finely balanced: there will be differences between localities, and I do not disregard the arguments for local diversity, which is important, but on balance the argument in favour of consistency is stronger. My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) described the situation in a seaside town, where properties along the seafront may be located in different local authority areas. The argument is just as profound in neighbouring boroughs or suburbs of a conurbation, but is perhaps less applicable in rural areas, where settlements are more widely spread. However, I imagine that the problem of inconsistency will be profound in many towns and cities, and it is not one that we should underestimate. During the past few weeks, that case has been put to me by several representative organisations. 
 In addition, a question mark hangs over the competence of local authorities to make decisions about the most appropriate management structures and funding arrangements. That is why we tabled amendment No. 304. By inserting 
''the guidance on fitness tests supplied by the appropriate national authority'',
 application will at least be consistent with the guidance that the national authority—the Government, for example—has provided, and a local authority will avoid the danger of inappropriateness in the way in which it defines management structures or funding arrangements for licensing. 
 The amendments are designed to ensure that the Bill is effective and that local authorities are not placed in a position in which they cannot implement its provisions, but can perform their responsibilities in a way that they can properly handle. Once again, we, as the official Opposition, have, in our humble way, done our best to make a positive contribution to the Bill. As I said at the outset, the question of consistency will permeate our discussions. The balance between the need for local discretion and variety and the simultaneous need to ensure equity and consistency has already been mentioned several times, and I suspect that it will be again. It is important that to achieve the right balance, but I am not yet convinced that the Bill as drafted does so.

Edward Davey: Good morning, Mr. Conway. It is nice to be here and to see amendment No. 291 to clause 69 in this group. That is appropriate. Some of the points made by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) need to be teased out at the start of our discussions on part 3. The Government have gone for a targeted approach to the regulation of the private-rented sector: we have mandatory licensing for parts of the HMO sector, discretionary licensing for other parts of it, and now selective licensing in certain cases.
 In their approach to regulation of the private sector, rather than take an across-the-board approach, which might have been heavy-handed, the Government have decided to make sure that local housing authorities have powers for specific purposes. It is therefore incumbent on the Committee to see whether the Government have achieved the right balance between having targeted powers for particular purposes and a broader approach, or an approach of no regulation. In trying to understand such matters in relation to selective licensing, we must work out whether the way in which the regime will be developed will be tough enough to deal with the problems of economic regeneration and antisocial behaviour, but not be too heavy-handed in relation to landlords. 
 I take on board the overall thrust of hon. Gentleman's comments—that too many different regimes operating cheek by jowl could cause confusion. I understand that, under the Government's scheme, in any local authority area there could be HMOs subject to mandatory licensing, HMOs subject to discretionary licensing, and some subject to selective licensing, as well as to things dealt with in part 4, such as interim management orders and final management orders. Having a multitude of regulatory regimes in operation could cause problems, so it is incumbent on the Government to ensure that the guidance to local authorities that accompanies the regimes is clear, and that there is good guidance for landlords, who will have to get used to handling them. 
 Landlords probably would prefer not to have any regulation at all. However, if that is not possible, they would prefer targeted regulation to across-the-board regulation. In pursuit of better regulation, it is incumbent on the Government to ensure that the 
 measures are easy to comply with. What lies behind today's debate is the question of whether the legislation will facilitate that and whether extra-statutory guidance will be provided. We have tabled amendment No. 291 because we want to try to resolve how the relationship between local and national Government will work in practice when setting up selective licensing regimes. As we do that, three matters in particular must be considered: first, the underlying conditions of the regime; secondly, how it will be managed; thirdly, how it will be approved. 
 I disagree with the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings about the relationship between central and local government in respect of the management of the regime. A landlord who has properties in neighbouring local authorities will encounter different approaches, different environmental health officers, different addresses for their departments and so on. It is inevitable that there will be different management, personnel, and addresses—and probably different forms—unless we do not allow local authorities to do that. We must accept that, because the Government have not gone for a national approach. Unless they propose more of a national regulatory regime, we must accept that there will be inherent differences. 
 We tabled amendment No. 291 because, having accepted the logic that there will be differences in management approaches—because, inevitably, different local authorities will implement the measure differently—we are concerned about the approval mechanism that the Government have put in place. It is too centralised, and the local authorities will always look to Whitehall to see whether a particular designation can go ahead. That is unnecessary. Amendment No. 291 proposes only that the Government should set down general, objective criteria that any selective licensing regime should meet, so that every time a local authority sets up a scheme it does not need to come to Whitehall and say, ''Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, is this okay by you chaps?'' That is not a good use of Whitehall civil servants; it is a waste of time and it flies in the face of new localism and local discretion.

John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman is making a persuasive case for amendment No. 291. He says that our argument is about the relationship between the landlord and the local authority. Our concerns about inconsistency do indeed essentially focus on that. His concern is about the relationship between local and national Government. I suggest to him that, given that there will be the variety of approaches that he describes, having as a longstop the requirement to return to national Government in respect of a designation means that the possibility of gross inconsistency can, to some extent, be anticipated and coped with. The requirement provides another check and another balance.

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman has greater faith than I in the ability of national Government to ensure harmony and consistency across the country. My question is whether or not such a requirement would even be appropriate. We are debating this issue in the wider context of local discretion. Either we are going
 to trust local authorities, or we are not. I do not want to go over the top, but the hon. Gentleman made one or two remarks about the competence of local authorities. We have given them some real power: either they are competent to handle it, or they are not.
 We need to start backing local government by trusting it and building up the calibre of the offices and councils that will take these decisions. Every time we put in legislation that means they have to go to Whitehall to have their decisions second-guessed, we undermine them. We are saying that we do not trust them, they cannot act by themselves, and they will get it wrong. Previous generations of parliamentarians would not have taken that approach. We have got used to always writing the Secretary of State into Bills, and it is about time he disappeared. We have got to be serious about this. 
 The Government should set down general criteria against which a scheme can be tested. If the landlords in a local authority think that a scheme is outwith the thrust of the legislation, they can go to court and say, ''The national Government set out in part 3 of the Housing Act 2004 and subsequent regulations what the selective licensing regime should be. The Government set down objective criteria. Council X's regime does not meet them.'' There would be a check—a form of redress for landlords if local authorities misused this power. I do not think that check should be other politicians sitting in Whitehall.

John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman makes a good case about the relationship between central and local government. However the problem in recent years is not that local authorities have not been given extra legal obligations and responsibilities, but that their competence to deal with those responsibilities—in terms of adequate resourcing and the necessary skilling that results from it—has not matched their legal obligations. Through the Bill, we are giving them additional obligations, but we may put authorities in a very difficult position if they are not given the necessary support to deal with them. Our amendments support local authorities in their efforts to make this legislation work properly.

Edward Davey: That is a very defeatist argument. The hon. Gentleman is basically saying that we mistreated local authorities so much that they are downtrodden and have not got enough money, so we have to keep them in a subservient role. I thought we were debating building them up again. I do not think we should be passing legislation that assumes that we will keep local under our heel. We should be making sure that they face up to their responsibilities.
 Our proposal is more challenging to local authorities because it puts the onus on them. They cannot say to the landlord that they have had their scheme okayed by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, so it must be all right. They have to get their scheme right so that it cannot be challenged in the courts. I suggest that that puts more responsibility on local authorities to get it right, and that is the way in which we should be trying to increase their competence. If local authorities are to set up regimes that are potentially onerous for landlords, they will have to think hard about whether they will be able to 
 defend those regimes in the courts. It will be a harder test to defend them in the courts than to defend them to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Ours is a landlord-friendly amendment, because it will ensure that local authorities get their regimes right. A judge will be a lot tougher than the Minister.

Yvette Cooper: Part 3 concentrates on the problems of low demand and antisocial behaviour, and sets out the provisions for selective licensing. This part of the Bill is about raising standards in different parts of the private rented sector from those that were addressed in part 2. It addresses the concerns that were very well expressed on Second Reading about what can happen in the private rented sector, especially in low demand areas, but also in areas where antisocial behaviour becomes a real problem.
 Local authorities currently have very few powers to address problems such as landlords buying up a job lot of cheap houses to speculate on redevelopment, then not caring how the properties are managed. Hon. Members gave examples on Second Reading of landlords who even colluded with tenants, tolerating not only antisocial behaviour, but drug dealing and more serious criminality. There is also the problem of absentee landlords, where everyone in an area does their bit to address antisocial behaviour except the private sector landlords who are simply absent and do not work with the rest of the community to try to solve the problems that it faces. 
 We made it clear that we need to find a way to solve such problems, but we do not want to fix things that are not broke. We do not want to introduce measures that will cause problems for areas that do not suffer low demand or antisocial behaviour in the private rented sector. That is why the Bill sets out a system of selective licensing, a flexible system that allows local authorities in different areas to address their different problems. The Bill also introduces a series of proportionate measures to ensure that we strike the right balance: we must have the type of regime that allows problems to be addressed, but that does not impose unnecessary burdens on local authorities, landlords or tenants. 
 Clause 66 sets out the general provisions for selective licensing. It provides that a house that is covered by part 3 must be licensed if the local authority has designated the area in which it is situated to be subject to selective licensing. Certain types of houses and tenancies will be excluded from the requirement, including those that are already licensed as HMOs and those with tenancies granted by registered social landlords and other specified tenancies. Subsection (5) places a general duty on local authorities that introduce selective licensing actively to promote its implementation—for example, by advertising the existence of the scheme and seeking applicants from owners and managers whose houses are required to be licensed—and it requires local authorities to process applications within a reasonable period. 
 The group of amendments does not apply only to clause 66, but I will confine my remarks to it and address later clauses when we come to them. I will comment on the general points that Opposition Members have made, then deal with the more specific matters that are raised in their amendments. 
 I listened to what the hon. Gentlemen had to say: they engaged in an interesting game of ping-pong between the national and the local. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings was concerned about lack of consistency between areas and wanted a stronger role for the national authority—the Government or the National Assembly for Wales. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton, on the other hand, wanted scope for local authorities to have more flexibility. He misunderstands how the Bill will operate. Local authorities will not be second-guessed, and the way in which they work will not be restricted—in practice, they will not be continually thinking about what Whitehall thinks. 
 Let me explain. Amendment No. 291 proposes that the provision for the national authority to confirm a designation should be replaced by criteria and that anything that fulfilled those criteria would become a designated area. However, those criteria are set out in the Bill: a proposed designation will be confirmed if it is either a low-demand area as set out in clause 67, or experiencing significant and persistent problems caused by antisocial behaviour and the other conditions set out in clause 67(6); and if there has been the proper consultation process with local people and everything has been done in the right way. Those are the criteria by which the national authority will decide whether to confirm a designation. It would be inappropriate to set out an additional list of criteria at this stage.

Edward Davey: I think that the Minister is missing my point. I understood that there are criteria set out in the Bill, but I am not clear about why there needs to be a confirmation process.

Yvette Cooper: I know, but that is the second point. The hon. Gentleman's argument is, first, that we need to set out criteria and, secondly, that the national authority should not have to confirm a designation. We have already set out the criteria. We do not need additional criteria. It makes sense for the national authority to make the confirmation, because there should be some independent confirmation of a designation by the local authority. Designation can have a significant impact on landlords and tenants in the area, so that requirement is appropriate. If a landlord is unhappy with the conditions that a local authority sets under the licensing regime, they should be able to appeal to an independent tribunal. There should, in the same way, be a separate check on the local authority when making such decisions to confirm that it has been through the process properly.

Vera Baird: Will my hon. Friend consider another aspect of confirmation? Some areas of my constituency suffer badly from low housing demand. The pattern tends to be that one area starts to collapse and well known figures come in, buy
 properties and, in a sense, make the area worse. An adjacent area is holding up, but then there are suddenly vacancies and the same landlords move in. It is necessary for the local authority to move quickly to try to save that area. Is that consistent with having a process of Whitehall approval over a period of three months?

Yvette Cooper: It is possible to address that kind of problem within the scope of the Bill. The conditions will not only allow licensing to cover existing areas of low demand, but those that are likely to become areas of low demand. It is possible for local authorities to anticipate that a problem of low demand will spread to affect other areas, rather than wait for problems to arise before taking action. That is why we specifically included in clause 67(3)(a) a reference to an area that
''is, or is likely to become, an area of low housing demand''.
 A further provision that helps to address the problems is clause 69(6), in which we allow general approvals to be given. In areas covered by highly rated, excellent authorities it might be appropriate to set out a general approval and, in effect, delegate confirmation to the local authority on the basis that it has fulfilled specific conditions. Alternatively, under clause 69(6)(b), 
''designations made by a local housing authority falling within a specified description of such authorities''
 may, in effect, be approved automatically. There are ways in which we can make the process more flexible and allow a more rapid response. Once a particular type of approval has been given, others may follow more quickly, so we do not have to go through the same process. 
 It is right in principle that a separate check should be available on local authorities, in the same way that there is in the relationship between landlords and the local authority. Hon. Members are right to raise these points. The system must be able to respond flexibly and quickly, without additional layers of bureaucracy.

Edward Davey: The Under-Secretary is beginning to reassure me on some points, but perhaps I could press her a little further.
 Before we get to the powers in clause 69(6), let us imagine that there is a local authority that wants to introduce a selective licensing regime for the first time—say that it is anticipating the possible decline of an area. How quickly does the Under-Secretary think the regime could be put in place, given the consultation period and the statutory process laid down in the Bill? What does she think the minimum period would be from the decision by the committee, or the mayor, or whoever is running that local authority, to the final confirmation?

Yvette Cooper: Licensing is a significant change from the current regime: we expect local authorities to behave in a different way towards landlords, and we expect different things from landlords. The committee cannot simply make a decision on a licensing regime one day, and have it in place the next. We should have a proper consultation process and that there should be a proper notification period to allow landlords and tenants proper time to be made aware, to put in their applications, to respond, to appeal against the process
 and so on. The regime will not be imposed instantly on an area at the very beginning, because when the relationships between the different players are changing in such a significant way, it is right that there should be time for proper consultation.
 I recognise that local authorities need to be able to respond swiftly. In the end, we are trying to get a balance between allowing local authorities to respond swiftly and making sure that everybody's voice is properly and fairly heard, including those of landlords, tenants and other organisations that may be affected. Committee members should also bear in mind that licensing is not a simple process that can be switched on and off. One has to think about what sorts of conditions should be imposed in the licence, and what are the most effective ways to do that to get the desired results.

Edward Davey: The Under-Secretary has reassured me almost completely. I want to make it clear that in no way do I want the process to be rushed. We have to get it right, and that means respecting the rights of landlords as well.
 The hon. Lady may find this a little tricky, but will she give an assurance that her Department—which I assume will be the ''appropriate national authority'' although she may tell us otherwise—will be able to turn round any requests for confirmation from a local authority quickly?

Yvette Cooper: Certainly, that would be our intention. The appropriate national authority would be either the Secretary of State at the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister or the National Assembly for Wales. That is why the wording is ''the appropriate national authority''. We certainly intend to turn confirmations round quickly. That is the reason for putting in a power of general approval as well. Once the system is up and running, perhaps a lot more could be done through general approval than through individual confirmations.
 This is a new approach for everyone, so it is right to start off with a process of specific confirmations, and we should be slightly cautious at the beginning about how long things will take. The system is new, and when it is first implemented, we will have to be confident that a lot of factors are taken into account. Once the system has bedded down, it should be able to work swiftly and smoothly.

Vera Baird: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the way in which she has addressed the concern that I raised. She has alleviated most of that concern, although I should like to mention one residual aspect. If an area is likely to become one of low housing demand, it can be designated—that is an important provision that she pointed out. However, even if the local authority is trying to take pre-emptive action, it appears that, under clause 67(6), it is obliged to find that
''a significant and persistent problem''
 of antisocial behaviour already exists in the area. In fact, the two tend to follow one another. Will that second criterion under clause 67(6) require delay?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. and learned Friend raises an important point. It is not necessary to have both sets of conditions in place. It is not a case of the first and second conditions having to be in place; the authority must be satisfied that either the first or the second set are in place. In practice, the link between low demand and antisocial behaviour means that in most cases the problems will satisfy both sets of conditions. However, if an area looks as though it will become a low-demand area and therefore that antisocial behaviour problems will arise, it would be possible to act under subsection (3) because
''the area . . . is likely to become, one of low housing demand''.
 Under clause 67(7), it is possible for additional conditions to apply. At this stage, we do not intend to use that subsection, but it allows us the flexibility to reconsider the conditions if the sets of requirements under subsections (3) and (6) turn out to be too restrictive and do not enable local authorities correctly to anticipate the sort of problems that will arise and deal with them at an appropriate time. 
 The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings reflect the different angle of his concern, which focuses on consistency throughout local authorities. The issue is genuine, but different approaches being taken in different areas are an inevitable consequence of allowing local authorities to deal with specific problems; furthermore, different conditions will be appropriate in different areas. It would be inappropriate to specify a set of conditions that have to apply to all licences or to a set of regimes, because they might be unnecessary and therefore cumbersome in certain areas. 
 An authority might be able to respond in a more flexible way to certain issues, because it does not need to deal with a range of problems that are important to the neighbouring local authority or others elsewhere in the country. The clause allows local authorities to focus on the particular problems that they face, rather than have to add belt, braces and goodness knows how many other provisions just because they are appropriate to other areas. We decided that it would be inappropriate to draw up sets of criteria in a way that would, first, cover every single problem faced by all local authorities and, secondly, pile a whole load of inappropriate requirements on individual local authorities. We have provided flexibility for local authorities so that they can deal with their problems, but have not placed additional, inappropriate burdens on them or landlords.

John Hayes: I appreciate the Under-Secretary's point about the Government's deliberations about the balance between the need for local discretion and the need for consistency. Will she comment on the necessity to provide consistency at least in matters such as notification and time scale? She will be aware of amendment No. 307, which would tighten the timetables. Although there is a need for local discretion, the Bill will place a burden on some local authorities that have a large number of houses to deal with, and certain pressures could lead to an inappropriate application of the law.

Yvette Cooper: Amendment No. 307 sets a specific time frame within which local authorities must deal with licence applications. We are having a similar debate to the one on HMOs, and a similar approach needs to be taken. Local authorities should aim to process the applications within six weeks, but cases will arise in which either that time scale is not appropriate for some reason, or it would be particularly difficult to meet. However, it is important that the landlord can continue to let while the licence application is being processed. A new landlord can fill in the application and start letting: he will not be disadvantaged by the time taken to approve the licence varying from one area to another, because he will be able to operate his business and let the property during that period.
 Although I agree with the hon. Gentleman that time scale matters and that local authorities should process applications effectively and responsibly, they may need to take resource and capacity issues into account when they decide which areas to designate and how quickly to designate them, especially if they have many areas for which they think designation may be appropriate. We are better off giving them flexibility, given that the harm to the landlord does not extend to an impact on their tenanting.

John Hayes: In a curious way the hon. Lady is right; there is no implicit harm to the landlord. However, a problem may be caused for tenants and the wider public by a delay in the appropriate designation, so there is a public interest issue to be considered. When I was drawing up the amendment, I wondered whether to specify a timetable. I was going to include a reference to six, 10 or 12 weeks, or some other period, but did not do so, because, as the Under-Secretary said, it is difficult to come to a conclusion about what is right. Will she confirm that the six-week recommendation will be made clear to local authorities in the written guidance? She has said that today, but will it be in the written guidance? Will she also say what sanction there might be where it is clear that a local authority is being dilatory?

Yvette Cooper: The Bill sets out, in clause 66(5), that local authorities have general duty
''to ensure that all applications for licences and other issues falling to be determined by them under this Part are determined within a reasonable time.''
 There is a duty on local authorities to behave responsibly. There is an ultimate sanction: if local authorities are failing in their general duty under subsection (5), it will be possible for the national authority not to confirm a designation that the local authority wants to make. That would be the ultimate sanction, but I do not think that those circumstances will arise. 
 The duty on local authorities is set out in the Bill and we think that it is fairer to use the term ''a reasonable time'' than to specify a particular time. As we have said, six weeks is an appropriate time scale, but we must bear in mind that there will be cases in which it is not appropriate. For example, if a landlord who has applied for a licence has a bad track record and has caused all kinds of problems in the past, it might take some time for a local authority to judge 
 whether or not it wants to give such a person a licence. That would depend on the circumstances, whether it is right for it to give a licence at that point, or whether it wants to consider additional conditions in the case of such a landlord.

John Hayes: I am sorry to be excessively inquisitorial, but I do not think that the Minister answered either of my questions. The first question was: will the six-week period that has been announced today be in the written guidance to local authorities? The second question was: what sanction will there be? A sanction of not confirming a designation is no great penalty to a local authority if it has acted in a dilatory fashion. It may be in the public interest that the designation is made. Where a local authority is dragging its feet, the Minister says that the best she can do is to tell it, ''Well, we will not confirm your designation.'' That will not upset or stir many people at the town hall, will it? The Minister will have to do better than that.

Yvette Cooper: Ultimately, the fact that the provision is in the Bill means that it is possible for a local authority that is not meeting its legal obligations to be made the subject of judicial review. It would not be appropriate for us to specify a six-week or 12-week timetable—or whatever it might be—which would mean that in every case a local authority was liable to judicial review if it did not meet that particular time scale.
 We have not at this stage specified any guidance that we will provide to local authorities on selective licensing. Most of the key issues are addressed in the Bill, and most of the information that they will need is in it. Many of the details will depend on local circumstances rather than on what that we would provide in national guidance. We will keep that under review and consider whether there are particular issues in the process on which local authorities would find it helpful to have guidance and information. At this stage, we do not anticipate particular pieces of guidance being sent out. 
 In government, there is always a danger of guidance becoming a substitute for other things—that the view taken will be one of, ''We will not give local authorities instructions or tell them what to do, but we will send out several tomes of guidance for people to plough through.'' We must ensure that if we send out guidance, it is only because local authorities have said that it would be helpful, not because we are using it to supplement the Bill with a load of national criteria. We have said that that is not what we intend. 
 Let me briefly deal with the other amendments tabled by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings. Amendment No. 302 proposes that we add by order to the two sets of general conditions. As I have said, under clause 67(7) we already have the power to add conditions if it is appropriate to do so, although at this stage we do not envisage that being done. Amendment No. 303 would amend clause 67 to specify the way in which the consultation process should take place. Again, there is enough detail in the Bill on the nature of the consultation. It is for local authorities to interpret the clause in more detail, 
 depending on the area they have in mind and the local stakeholders. 
 Amendment No. 304 asks for guidance on the fitness of management standards to be produced by the national authority. Clause 76(6)(c) already contains details on the type of things about which the local authority must be satisfied. We did not set those out in the national guidance, because the circumstances will vary from area to area and between properties. The things that a responsible manager of a Victorian terraced house will need to do may be different from those the landlord or manager of a modern, purpose-built flat needs to do. Given that such things cannot be helpfully covered by national guidance, it is not appropriate to specify whether guidance must be provided. We will, however, keep that under review. If it becomes appropriate to issue non-statutory guidance at a later stage, we can revisit the matter. 
 In responding to the amendments tabled by hon. Members, I have tried to deal with their overall concerns about consistency and the balance between local authorities and national Government. We are getting that balance right, although there is scope in the Bill to keep it under review and to consider further issues as they arise. I ask the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings to withdraw his amendment.

John Hayes: I have listened carefully to the Under-Secretary's response to this interesting debate, which has focused on balance between the appropriate level of responsibility for local authorities—supported by the proper resources and skilling—and the desire to ensure that landlords know where they stand. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton made a strong argument. Landlords would rather have no regulation, but if they must have something, they at least want to know where they stand: they want the provision to be clear, comprehensible and consistent. I am inclined to the view that we may end up with something of a dog's dinner unless we instruct local authorities as to what is expected of them. That is not to be dictatorial, but simply to be fair in informing them that they have a major set of new responsibilities. To deal with those responsibilities appropriately, they must have a clear idea of what is expected of them. If they do not know, it is they who will take the rap from the landlords—not the Government who introduced the Bill.
 This has not been a dispute between people with different views on the importance of local government. I hope that all Committee members have strong views on the importance of local democracy. The debate has been about ensuring that local authorities are equipped to do their job properly. 
 The hon. Gentleman spoke about criteria. I intervened on the Under-Secretary to ask about guidance. We are both saying that it is of the greatest importance that the Government assist local authorities by creating a framework that is likely to bring about clear and consistent action. I am still concerned about this measure, but the hon. Lady has put her case reasonably. I hope that, as she generously suggested they would, the Government will keep the 
 way in which the measure works in practice under careful scrutiny, and that if necessary—if my worst fears are realised—they will adopt a different approach. However, given that the argument has been well made and because I do not think it is an appropriate matter on which to divide the Committee, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

John Hayes: I beg to move amendment No. 301, in
clause 66, page 44, line 18, at end insert— 
 '(6) Whatever the arrangements of management, it is the manager who shall be ultimately responsible for a house under this part possessing a valid licence.'.

Derek Conway: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 305, in 
clause 75, page 50, line 17, leave out paragraph (d) and insert— 
 '(d) that the manager shall be ultimately responsible for a house under this part possessing a valid licence.'.

John Hayes: When proposing the first group of amendments, I mentioned that one of the potential difficulties was ensuring that responsibility for managing a property was firmly targeted at the person doing the job. Hon. Members will be aware that many landlords employ managing agents. They ask a manager—usually a firm—to carry out the landlord's responsibilities, such as drawing up the necessary agreements for tenants, collecting rents, dealing with all the legal aspects of the business and ensuring that the property is kept in good order. It would be bizarre if we were unclear about the responsibility for licensing in those circumstances, because the person managing the property has key responsibilities in that respect. Imagine the scene: the owner, perhaps paying a significant sum of money, a percentage of the potential income from his properties, has entrusted responsibilities to a management organisation, yet in law he remains responsible for licensing even though licensing relates to most of the things that the managing agents have said they will do for the owner. Our amendments are designed to target accurately the responsibilities that are central to the Bill.
 I am delighted to see that we have been joined by the third Member of the Liberal Democrat team, the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross). I feared that he had returned to Brussels. We are delighted to see him, and I am sure he will continue to give the very close consideration to the Bill and to our affairs that he has shown so far. I do not want to be excessively cruel, but the hon. Gentleman strikes me as the sort of man who as a boy would always have had a sick note for swimming. However, let us move quickly on. 
 The importance of the amendments is to focus the Bill on the manager. There will be different views on this matter, but let me try to anticipate the Committee's possible responses. Of course it is fair to say that people who own things have the ultimate responsibility for them. However, practical experience of being a landlord and of the relationship between 
 manager and owner suggests that it would be quite unacceptable for us to let managing agencies off the hook by saying that they are not responsible for any of the matters dealt with in this part of the legislation when they are rewarded for running the affairs of the landlord. That is what amendments Nos. 301 and 305 would deal with, by shifting ultimate responsibility to managers. That is right and fair. I hope that the Under-Secretary will continue in the spirit that she has shown this morning by agreeing to the amendments without reservation.

Yvette Cooper: Amendments Nos. 301 and 305 would require that applications for licences be made by the manager of a house in every case, regardless of the circumstances. I will set out why that would be inappropriate shortly, but first, I give the assurance that it will be possible for the manager to hold the licence. If, for example, a landlord lives far away and does not want to be involved in the management of the property and so has appointed a manager to do all the routine day-to-day work on finances and so forth, he may well want the manager also to hold and operate the licence and for the conditions of the licence to apply to the manager. If a landlord makes such an application, and if the manager agrees and is an appropriate manager—a fit and proper person as set out in the Bill—there is no reason why the local authority should not grant the licence to the manager. However, that manager must have sufficient funds and power to deal with problems such as serious repairs; the manager must not be merely ''a face man'' who is unable to do the sorts of things that the licence holder needs to be able to do. To grant the licence to the manager might be the right thing to do. In many cases, therefore, the licence might be held by the manager rather than by the landlord.
 However, it is also right that the ultimate responsibility to apply for a licence, or to find an appropriate manager to apply, lies with the landlord. Often, houses have no effective manager. Sometimes, the landlord lives hundreds of miles away and collects the rent cheque or the housing benefit cheque from the local authority by post, and does not even visit the property. Some of the most serious cases that we have to deal with in low-demand areas are non-management cases, where nobody is managing the house because the landlord has disappeared and there is no manager. It would be inappropriate to specify that the manager should always apply for licences, because sometimes there is no such manager. In those circumstances, the ultimate responsibility should fall on the landlord. The amendments would prevent the non-manager owner from ever applying for a licence.

John Hayes: The Under-Secretary makes a good point. I always say that the wording of amendments is rarely perfect—and that certainly applies to my amendments. However, I was not referring to the kind of situation that the Under-Secretary describes in which there is no manager or the landlord is the manager—small landlords who only rent one house are often the manager of the property. I am referring to a situation where there is a manager appointed by
 the landlord and that is clearly understood by all concerned—tenants and others. That manager might be taking a substantial fee for organising the landlord's affairs. In those circumstances, it would be bizarre for the manager not to be responsible in respect of the licence.

Yvette Cooper: In those circumstances, it would be curious if the landlord and manager decided that they wanted the landlord to apply for the licence. The point that I am trying to make is that it is perfectly possible for the manager to become the licence holder in such circumstances. For the manager to apply for the licence, all that is needed is the agreement of the manager as well as the landlord—because the manager must accept the responsibilities—and for the manager to fulfil the criteria of being a fit and proper person. If, in the circumstances described, the manager does not accept the responsibilities, they must ultimately fall to the landlord—although if that were the case, the landlord would probably appoint a different manager.
 It would be necessary to be confident about one further aspect in respect of a manager that might not be necessary in respect of a landlord. The manager must have enough access to the owner's resources to be able to address problems if they arise. The manager must be able to do the things that the licence holder needs to be able to do, rather than simply be the person who turns up to pick up the cheque. He must have the power and flexibility to operate and to exercise the licence holder's responsibilities.

John Hayes: I understand that, but in a typical case the managing agent would take a proportion of the income in return for a commitment to provide a range of services associated with the management of the property on behalf of the landlord. Access would be gained to the money because a fair commercial arrangement would have already been determined between the landlord and the managing agent, so I am not absolutely sure that the resource point is salient.
 I am grateful to the Minister for giving me another chance to express my concern about a situation in which a landlord entrusts the manager with such matters , but then finds that the manager has not taken due diligence in respect of the licence. Under the Bill, the landlord will be ultimately responsible, despite the fact that he may live some distance away from the property, or have several properties in different areas. In such circumstances, it would be monstrous for the owner to be liable.

Yvette Cooper: In those circumstances, the issue boils down to the relationship between the owner and the manager. It is obviously the owner's responsibility to make sure that his interests are properly secured in the contractual relationship. It is possible for the manger to be the licence holder. In the circumstances described by the hon. Gentleman, we would expect the manager to be the licence holder.

Geraldine Smith: I have many examples in my constituency of the manager being a tenant in the property. The landlord passes responsibility to the tenant, but often not the necessary resources. That can cause considerable problems. It is right and proper that,
 ultimately, the responsibility should fall on the landlord.

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right. There will be circumstances in which the manager is either not a fit and proper person to be a manager, or is not able to exercise the responsibilities of the licence holder. That is why it is up to the local authority to decide. If it is appropriate to give the licence to a manager, that is how the system should work. However, if the manager is not appropriate and not able to exercise the responsibilities of the licence holder, it is right that the responsibilities should ultimately fall to the owner. If the owner is also not able to exercise the responsibilities, the licence should not be given. Ultimately, the responsibility should fall to the owner, but of course it is right that there should be the flexibility to have a manager as a licence holder where that is appropriate.
 The arrangements in the Bill provide the appropriate flexibility and make it clear in what circumstances the manager can take responsibility and who is ultimately responsible, but the bottom line is that the landlord has to take the final responsibility to make sure that a licence is in place and that an appropriate person is the licence holder. If the landlord cannot find someone to take such responsibility, he will have to undertake the work himself. On that basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

John Hayes: The Under-Secretary's eloquence has persuaded me of her case. Although there is a finely balanced argument and the relationship between landlords and managers is an important consideration, in the end, the Minister is right. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

David Kidney: I wish to ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary about the selective licensing regime. If a university's hall of residence were in a area designated for selective licensing, would it be required to have a licence? We had an extensive debate on Tuesday about houses in multiple occupation. There are many exemptions listed in schedule 9, one of which is university halls of residence, so they are clearly not caught under that system. If an area is designated as requiring selective licensing under the clause, I understand that every house would be subject to a tenancy or a licence. The definition of ''house'' under clause 84 includes a building with one or more dwellings in it, which I think means a university hall of residence.
 Under clause 66, social landlord properties are explicitly exempted from the scheme, so that we do not catch accidentally council or housing association properties. No others are mentioned, but under subsection (4) 
''the appropriate national authority may by order provide for descriptions of tenancies or licences''
 that do not need to have a licence. I wonder whether the Government intend national authorities to provide 
 that university halls of residence do not count. It would be interesting to know whether students will have that protection if they reside in that sort of area.

Edward Davey: I welcome the clause, which I think is exceedingly important. That was brought home to me not in my constituency—we tend not to have areas of low demand in Kingston and Surbiton—but on a recent trip to Newcastle, when councillor Greg Stone and some of his colleagues showed me around parts of the city. I was amazed by the rows and rows of poorly maintained properties. Some were boarded up. The councillor introduced me to local people—many were elderly, although a few families remained—who had lived there for a long time. They had to put up with appalling behaviour and a general decline in the area because the landlords were absent. The Under-Secretary described such a situation in the previous debate. People—primarily students—were renting cheap properties from the absentee landlords and bringing the area down. There was no effective control of or duty of care towards the properties and their tenants. There is no doubt that the clause is needed for such areas. My colleagues in Newcastle welcome the Government's approach, as do other people in other areas, I am sure. The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith) is very keen on the measure.
 Despite the general welcome, I have one concern, which relates to my constituency. It is unlikely that we will use such measures there, but we get the odd landlord who behaves in an appalling way. None of the measures in the Bill will help with that: such landlords will not be covered by mandatory HMO licensing, nor by the additional licensing in part 2. I asked the Minister for Housing and Planning and his officials about the issue, and I got the impression that part 4 offered some way to deal with the type of landlord that I have in mind. However, part 4 links back to parts 2 and 3. My advice from the Law Society is that such a landlord could not be tackled. 
 Let me describe the type of person that I am thinking about: a landlord who serially lets his properties to drug dealers and people who cause mayhem. I am pleased to say that that does not happen too often in my constituency, but occasionally it does. Such landlords, for their own nefarious reasons, have relationships with people of that type, who can cause real distress in the community.

Andrew Selous: On a point of order, Mr. Conway. I seek your guidance. I, too, wish to make remarks about antisocial behaviour, but that seems to be covered under clause 67(6). At what point should I make my remarks on that subject? We seem to be touching on it now, but it does not seem to be specifically mentioned in clause 66.

Derek Conway: The hon. Gentleman should make his remarks specifically about antisocial behaviour when we get to the next clause, but the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton is relating that matter to the licensing provisions of clause 66. At the moment, he is in order. He is skating near the edge, but he is
 relating his point to whether the clause would cover the individual difficulty in his constituency. I am reasonably content that his speech is in order, as long as it specifically relates to whether licensing will cover individual cases and and does not turn into a general debate about antisocial behaviour. I would not want it to be broader and take in the wider subject of antisocial behaviour at this stage.

Edward Davey: Nor would I, Mr. Conway. I am concerned about particular landlords. Having been reassured previously by the Under-Secretary that those would be covered, it appears, on closer examination, that that is not so. This is a difficult area. I propose—actually, I am not sure whether I want to propose it, but it is worth having the debate—that the only way to get round that issue would be to allow the local housing authority to designate a particular landlord, rather than adopt the Government's approach and deal with a category of properties, or a particular area.
 In clause 66 we are talking about licensing houses in a particular area. Perhaps the Government should have gone further to give powers to license an individual landlord if they behave in a way that breaks the conditions set out in clause 66, especially subsection (6). I wonder whether the Under-Secretary has given any thought to that. 
 There are difficulties, possibly including human rights problems. There could be a problem if the local housing authority abused those powers and targeted an individual because there had been some disagreement between them. However, if the Under-Secretary is keen to provide the local housing authorities with powers to tackle a particular type of landlord, perhaps she needs to think about my proposal—although I am sure that it is too late in the process to include it in this Bill. There would need to be wide consultation, because it would create a different type of licensing regime and one that would, in some people's eyes, be quite onerous. However, it is important that the Under-Secretary explains, certainly for my constituents, whether I have got it wrong, whether there are powers in the Bill to deal with that kind of landlord, and whether the Government are sympathetic and might take the idea away and think about it.

Derek Conway: Order. Before I call the Under-Secretary, the Committee will see that we will deal with clause 86 onward once the knife has fallen at the end of today's sitting; it is likely that we will do so on Tuesday morning. There will no doubt be a more general debate on the specific issues that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton has raised when we reach clause 87. The Under-Secretary should therefore reply briefly to the point he makes.

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) asked whether university accommodation is covered. He was right to mention clause 66(4), which allows ''the appropriate national authority'' to
''provide for descriptions of tenancies of licences specified in the order to be exempt from tenancies of licences.''
 We intend to exempt halls of residence from this licensing regime for the same reasons that we gave during the HMOs debate. Universities should already be responsible landlords. Under part 4 we will exclude certain other tenancies as prescribed in an order that will reflect schedule 1 of the Housing Act 1988. For example, long leaseholds, local authority tenancies, and business and agricultural tenancies will be included. 
 The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton has raised an important issue. I draw his attention to clause 88, which makes proposals for special interim management orders, which might be appropriate in the circumstances that he describes. As you have said, Mr. Conway, we will have an opportunity to discuss that clause next Tuesday, so that would be the appropriate time to talk in more detail about the concerns the hon. Gentleman raised. It is intended that the Bill should address the kinds of problems about which he is talking—and clause 88 provides the appropriate way to do that. 
 We have a wide-ranging debate and although we have concentrated on the detail, I think that everybody is in agreement on the strong need for these measures to be in place and on the strong support for them—particularly from communities in areas that are blighted by serious problems. The proposals will give them the power to help them address those problems. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 66 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 67 - Designation of selective licensing areas

Edward Davey: I beg to move amendment No. 289, in
clause 67, page 44, line 23, at end insert 
 ', or 
 (c) areas in their district,'.
 This is a probing amendment to check that the Government have got their legislation right. Subsection (1) states: 
''A local housing authority may designate either—
(a) the area of their district, or
(b) an area in their district,
as subject to selective licensing''.
 I wanted to check that that does not prevent a local housing authority from designating more than one area in its district, where the areas do not make up the total amount of its district. The Government might feel that the subsection will work by allowing a local housing authority to designate, for example, two different wards. Amendment No. 289 is designed simply to help the Government pursue their policy even more effectively, if they have not got the measure right.

Yvette Cooper: The clause sets out the designation of selective licensing areas—the types of areas that can be licensed and what the basic requirements for making a designation are. It provides that a local housing authority can designate an area of its district as subject to selective licensing if either one or other of
 two sets of general conditions specified in the Bill are fulfilled: Subsection (3) provides:
''that the area is, or is likely to become, an area of low housing demand''.
 and that 
''combined with other measures taken . . . by the local authority''
 the designation will help to improve 
''the social or economic conditions in the area.''
 Subsection (6) applies to areas that have significant antisocial behaviour problems. That subsection was added because we heard from many people that problems that are often concentrated in low-demand areas are not exclusive to those areas. Significant problems of persistent antisocial behaviour that are rooted in poor management by private landlords can arise in other areas as well. 
 Subsection (7) allows the appropriate national authority to add to those two sets of general conditions. Subsection (9) requires a local housing authority to consult locally and satisfactorily on its scheme for selective licensing before it makes a designation under the clause. 
 Amendment No. 289 would amend subsection (1), which provides that a designation under part 3 can relate to a part of a local authority's area or to all of it. The current drafting of the Bill does not prevent selective licensing from operating in different parts of a local authority area. Some local authorities will want to license more than one part of their area and it would be crazy if they could only license either one small corner, or the whole of. their area. That is obviously not the intention of the Bill, and I am assured by the lawyers that that is not its effect. The Bill provides that all of a local authority area can be licensed, but we do not expect such a situation to arise given that the scope of the regime is focused on low demand and antisocial behaviour. Licensing should be used only where it is necessary, so the general expectation is that it will not apply to all of a local authority area.

Alan Whitehead: I have tried to follow the debate with some care. As as I understand it, the central question is: can a local authority have only one go at designating an area? If it can, presumably it applies the regulations on each occasion. Is that the Minister's understanding of the matter?

Yvette Cooper: No, clearly a local authority does not have only one go; separate areas may need to be licensed. If there are distinct areas, however, various conditions and circumstances may apply. They may need to be justified in different ways.
 It is possible for general approvals to be given under clause 69(6), so it may be appropriate for the national authority to confirm a series of areas or several areas specified by the local authority that meet particular conditions, rather than the local authority having to make identical repeat applications for them all. The power of general approval could be used, but if a local authority proposes to designate different parts of an area for different reasons, it is appropriate that each should be justified separately and on their 
 own terms. Appropriate consultation processes should be gone through in each of those areas, and they should be individually justified. 
 The Bill allows us to treat separate parts of local authority areas separately when appropriate, but gives the power in clause 69 for general approval when appropriate. As I said earlier, we might want to be cautious on the early application of that power, and it may take some time to get in place. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton to withdraw the amendment.

Edward Davey: The Under-Secretary has totally satisfied me. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

John Hayes: I beg to move amendment No. 308, in
clause 67, page 45, line 3, at end insert— 
 '(d) the number of occupiers that are not British passport holders'.
 The amendment is designed to add to the criteria that a local authority must take into account when deciding whether an area is, or is likely to become, an area of low housing demand. I had two situations in mind when tabling the amendment. The first—it will be familiar to members of the Committee, as it affects various parts of the country—is of landlords who ''specialise'' in housing vulnerable people who may be temporary visitors to the United Kingdom. I think, for example, of people seeking asylum and others who are not UK passport holders and who may not necessarily be in a position to represent their own interests as effectively as one would wish, because they are not familiar with their entitlements. They are people with temporary permission to be here for various reasons—work is a good example.

Karen Buck: Will the hon. Gentleman say how he would establish the numbers who would fulfil that criterion? Would he rely on the tried and tested methods of visual identification, or would he seek to establish some form of registration—something familiar from Germany before the last war—whereby people are asked to register whether they have a British passport before moving in to a local authority area.

John Hayes: The hon. Lady makes an important point. That difficulty is faced by various local authorities—including my own—that have to deal with large numbers of people who are not UK passport holders being brought in to their area for the purposes of temporary or seasonal work. Many are temporary workers with a right to be here, but who are often severely exploited by gangmasters—there is legislation before the House to license gangmasters for precisely those reasons. Such people are also exploited, sometimes unknowingly, by employers, and by landlords. Sometimes, there is an overlap between those groups. People buy properties, turn them into HMOs and ''specialise'' in dealing with vulnerable people, because they know such people are often unaware of their proper entitlements, and do not know what they can reasonably expect from a property or what sort of rent they can properly be expected to pay.
 There is a real problem. I will be attending a meeting on the matter at the weekend because of concerns felt by my local authority and others. 
Several hon. Members rose—

John Hayes: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) first.

Andrew Selous: I recognise my hon. Friend's point. Is he aware of the incident in Norfolk of which I was recently made aware, where the local fire brigade was brought to a house on fire and it was found that 26 Chinese people were living in a small terraced house and garage, with mattresses on the floor in the garage and throughout the house? There was a severe fire risk. I think my hon. Friend will agree that that illustrates his point.

John Hayes: Yes, I do recognise that situation. There was a case in my constituency in which a number of people, including children, were being housed in glasshouses. Luckily, working with the local authority—South Kesteven—we were able to have the matter dealt with. I went to the property following complaints from neighbours, and I found that the people with whom we were dealing were not the slightest bit interested in the welfare of the people they were housing. It was exploitation of the most savage kind. In the end it was dealt with, but many cases are not because they are not known about.
 The local authority in South Holland is struggling to find out where such things are happening. For the reasons made clear by the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck), the problem is often hidden. If one looks at a large house that one knows is being rented, it is not easy to know precisely how many people are occupying it. There are profound associated problems of overcrowding, but overcrowding is only one of many problems, which also include the conditions in which people are living, the facilities available to them, the rent they are paying and perhaps their employment arrangements. 
 It would be remiss to ignore the fact that this problem is growing, particularly in parts of the country such as Norfolk, Lincolnshire, Worcestershire and other parts where there is a high demand for seasonal or occasional labour; remiss not to understand its connection with housing and HMOs in particular; and remiss not to take seriously the responsibility that we all have to address the issue.

Brian Iddon: In my view this is a dangerous amendment. I represent a large Asian community and I know that there are many people—hundreds, if not thousands—living in that community who do not hold British passports but have indefinite permission to remain in this country. They prefer to hold on to the passport of their country of origin, but many of them have been here for a very long time and prefer for their own reasons—which I accept—not to apply for British citizenship. How would the hon. Gentleman differentiate between such people and those to whom he refers?

John Hayes: That is a fair point. I acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman is making a case for a different kind of citizen. Many people not living in the conditions that I described are not British passport holders. I think he will understand that there is a major loophole in the current regulatory arrangements in respect of people who are being outrageously treated.
 The problem is growing. It is partly an employment problem, which is not something that we need to consider here, but it is increasingly becoming a housing problem. My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire has mentioned one case and I the number of examples in my constituency is growing week by week. Although it is not easy to identify where overcrowded houses are, a couple of weeks ago in my constituency, the local authority had managed identify one, where it found people housed in the most appalling conditions. Perhaps the amendment is not the best way to deal with the problem, but it is important that we raise it. Given that the problem is growing, it would have been irresponsible not to raise it. 
 The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) is right. The difficulties are twofold: one is differentiating the various groups of non-passport holders; another is identifying the conditions that I have described. That was the point made by the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North. Perhaps the local authorities do not have sufficient powers or resources to identify such problems, but it would be irresponsible to allow them to continue. It was important that I tabled the amendment, although I acknowledge the points made by the hon. Lady and hon. Gentleman. 
 The hon. Gentleman is right to say that many people living in reasonable circumstances choose, for various reasons, not to become passport holders. Many landlords and tenants in happy, appropriate arrangements will fall into that category. However, some irresponsible landlords are deliberately targeting vulnerable groups that are least able to defend their interests. Those people are often non-English-speakers who have a slim understanding of what is a fair wage or a fair rent and are unaware of the law that exists to protect them in various ways. There are often very young people involved. This is an emerging unspoken horror. 
 We have had a ten-minute Bill about gangmasters and now there is a private Member's Bill on the subject. They have begun to tease out some of the issues that I have mentioned today. 
Vera Baird rose—
Mr. Davey rose—

John Hayes: I give way to the hon. Gentleman first.

Edward Davey: I am worried and may have report the hon. Gentleman to Mr. Paul Dacre, because he seems to want to give huge extra rights to the categories of people about whom he is worried. There would be a huge cost to the taxpayer from setting up a system to try to work out who are British passport holders. Will he explain to the Committee why he wants to give
 preferential rights to this group, and why he thinks that holding a British passport is relevant?

John Hayes: It is not a question of giving extra rights to people. It is not unreasonable to ensure that in a civilised, responsible country we do not have people brought in under arrangements made by landlords and gangmasters working together. They go to the country of origin where they use well established networks to bring some of the most vulnerable people to this country, where they make housing arrangements that they know are inappropriate and inadequate. This is not about extra rights—it is about ensuring that those people are not being treated appallingly badly. Surely the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that it is appropriate for people to continue to live in glasshouses. That is the implication of what he said.
 It is not a matter of giving people rights—the Liberal Democrat party, not the Conservative party, is obsessed with rights—it is about ensuring that the housing provided for people is appropriate and civilised, and that they are not being exploited. 
Mr. Davey rose—

John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman should tread carefully before thinking that we should not do any of those things.

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman has not grasped the point that any rights that are needed by people who are being exploited should apply to everybody, irrespective of where they come from or what passport they hold, because they are human beings.

John Hayes: I acknowledge that there are different circumstances in relation to passport holders, but it is important to highlight the issue in that context, because if we do not draw attention to it in a Bill that is about ensuring that HMOs are up to a reasonable standard and licensing them appropriately, where will we deal with it? If we know that there is a major problem with HMOs in this respect—a problem that tends to be focused in areas where there is relationship with employment patterns—and we are discussing legislation on HMOs, it would be bizarre not raise to it and say that the Government need to be cognisant of it and examine ways to deal with it.
 The Government have acted and I am grateful to them. Just the other day, I received a letter saying that in my own south Lincolnshire area there will be a policy of targeting some of the worst activities that are, sadly, quite prevalent there, such as the exploitation of labour in the way that I have described. So the problem is recognised, but not to link it to the housing responsibilities of local authorities would be an error. That is why I raise the issue. I do not want to go on about it as I think that I have made my point.

Vera Baird: The hon. Gentleman points to an abysmal aspect of trafficking and to landlordism victimising vulnerable groups. Why then is he proposing to blame and stigmatise the vulnerable groups that he asserts that he is trying to protect by trying to get us to enshrine in statute that the presence of many foreigners is capable of bringing an area
 down? Does he understand the implications of what he is proposing?

John Hayes: The hon. and learned Lady makes a fair point, but it is not a question of stigmatising people; it is one of identifying them. If there are people living in the conditions that I have described, we need to know where and how such things are happening. She is right about the consequence of the amendment in its current form. As I have said repeatedly in relation to other amendments, I am not being unreasonably insistent about the way in which I have proposed the amendment, or the detail of it. I tabled it to ensure the issue is aired and that the Government understand the concerns.
Ms Buck rose—

John Hayes: I will finish dealing with point made by the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) first. I accept what she is saying: there would be an unforeseen danger if I pressed the amendment to a Division and it was accepted. However, it is important that the Government go away and work with the agencies that are taking this matter seriously: the immigration service are aware of it and are acting on it; the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is working on it; various Departments and agencies have identified the problem and appreciate its profound nature.
 From a housing perspective it would be healthy to understand that there is victimisation of a group of people who are ill equipped to protect their own interests. I make no apology for raising the issue, and I have not pressed the amendment to a Division. It may be that the hon. and learned Lady is right that the amendment in its current form would be unhelpful in a number of ways. However, I think that she would be the first to acknowledge that my point about that kind of victimisation needs to be made and cannot be made too often. It is rarely made in respect of housing. I cannot remember it being raised in the House in respect of HMOs. It has been raised in terms of employment and in relation to some of the immigration issues associated with it, but the link with HMOs must established fully and firmly.

Sally Keeble: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that it has been raised vociferously in relation to housing by one hon. Member with a Liverpool constituency in connection with the appalling conditions in some of that city's properties for immigrants? I, too, have raised it in terms of housing issues. As for glasshouses, there is plenty of provision to have those declared unfit for human habitation and to shut them down.

John Hayes: I do not want to go into the fine detail of a constituency case, but sadly—almost unbelievably—the owner of the glasshouses went to appeal. It was not until an inquiry, to which I gave evidence, was set up hat we were able to pursue the matter. The typical prevarication took place and it went on for a considerable time, during which people continued to live in the property. The hon. Lady, with her expertise in local government, knows how often every avenue is used to exploit such delays, during which the people concerned continue in an
 unfortunate situation. She is right—that is how it was dealt with in the end, but we need to ensure that local authorities have proper powers to enable them to identify such unacceptable situations and to deal with them severely. However, I take the point that, because of its wording, the amendment might have the unintended consequences that have been described by other hon. Members.

Alan Whitehead: The hon. Gentleman states that the amendment might not be perfect for its purpose. Perhaps he has missed the point that his amendment requires the local authority to take the subject of his amendment into account. Clause 67(4) says that
''a local housing authority must take into account''
 such matters. Therefore, it would have to take steps to do that. The only way to do it would be to carry out regular passport checks throughout its area, to demonstrate to the Government that it had done it. Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that the local authority should go from door to door asking people to present their passports? Would French people have cause to worry? I fear that not only has he not fully thought it through, but he has not thought it through at all.

John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman clearly has heard the sense of my argument in terms of my desire to try to deal with a serious problem that has a significant housing aspect to it. We have no mechanism to deal with it. My local authority is having difficulties because of the deliberate policy of concealment. The sort of people who are in the business of trafficking individuals, employing them in scandalously unfair and unreasonable conditions and housing them in the way that I have described are not going to come clean about it—they will not advertise in the local paper. Local authorities find it difficult to deal with the problem, not only because of the resource implications but because of the simple matter of investigating and identifying where it is occurring. It is a new problem that they have encountered only relatively recently. The hon. Gentleman is right; the idea of identifying everybody in order to find the culprits is not appropriate, but it is important that we raise the issue. I am concerned that local authorities do not have sufficient resources or power to deal with a growing problem.
 It is harder to understand the problem if one does not represent or live in an area where it has arisen in the past few years. Certainly in rural, agricultural areas, where there is a big demand for temporary labour, it is significant. My hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds)— 
Geraldine Smith rose—
Ms Buck rose—

John Hayes: I shall give way once more to the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North, because I am so fond of her. Then, because I do not want to show favouritism, I shall give way to the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale of whom I am equally fond.

Karen Buck: I am very grateful indeed to the hon. Gentleman for his kindness. I accept that there is a kernel of truth in his words, but many of us are concerned that it is deeply irresponsible to dress up a legitimate concern about abuse and exploitation in a form of words that implies that ethnicity is a proxy for low demand. In order to put the nail in the coffin of the amendment—although the way in which the hon. Gentleman introduced it makes me unsure whether this is strictly necessary—I remind him that areas such as Fulham, Kensington and Chelsea, St. John's Wood, Mayfair and Holland Park probably have the highest number of residents who do not hold British passports in the entire country. There is no relationship between demand and attractiveness, and value of property is not remotely connected to ethnicity or the holding of a British passport.

John Hayes: That is a fair point. When I looked for the means of raising such an important matter, I found that there was no easy or convenient way in which to do so in the Bill. I looked under the selective licensing, additional licensing and mandatory licensing provisions for ways in which such an argument could be made. Matters are coming to a head: I am to have meetings this weekend about it. A private Member's Bill has been drafted on the licensing of gangmasters. The hon. Lady reminded me that such an argument has been raised in the House by other hon. Members.
 The Bill is highly pertinent to such issues because it deals with the licensing of houses in multiple occupation, in large part for the purposes of dealing with the exploitation of vulnerable people. There could be no more appropriate Bill in which to raise the important issue of the exploitation of people. Members of the Committee will recognise what I have tried to do, yet there is no convenient or easy way of doing it through the Bill. Frankly, it is not specifically designed to do the job that I have described, although in general terms it probably is the right vehicle by which to create a bridge across employment and immigration, as well as housing. 
 The Employment Service, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the immigration service are working in concert to consider how the exploitation that I have described is being perpetuated. Specific targeted approaches are being employed in parts of the country where it is most prevalent. I have already mentioned my area: until we get the housing and the local government aspects right, we will not bottom out. It is scandalous that some rogue landlords are specialising—I use that word again—in identifying the people whom they know are least able to defend their own interests. 
 The hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North referred to ethnicity. I am not suggesting that such problems are limited to one part of the world. People are being drawn in from all parts of the world. The range of countries from which the people are being trafficked is extraordinary. Well-established networks often send out people to the country of origin to identify vulnerable people and bring them into this country. My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire mentioned such cases earlier. I repeat: I have heard stories of people 
 who are charged massive rents, who receive low wages and who live in extraordinary overcrowded conditions, enduring all the risks associated with such circumstances and all of the horrors that one can imagine. 
 I shall continue to raise the issue. I accept that the amendment is highly imperfect—an even bigger concession than I have made already. I am pleased that we have had the debate. I hope that the Ministers will take away the proposals that have been made, work with their colleagues in other parts of the Government and consider ways in which to create additional powers to deal with an entirely unacceptable exploitation of vulnerable people. 
Richard Younger-Ross (Teignbridge) (LD) rose—
Mr. Davey rose—

John Hayes: I am not giving way to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton, and I am certainly not going to give way to the hon. Member for Teignbridge. He only comes here occasionally; he is like a rare bird. I am not giving way to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton who had the temerity to say about my defence of people whom I should have thought he would have been interested in standing up for that I was giving them too many rights. My argument is not about giving them too many rights; it is about giving them appropriate protection and acknowledging that we have a duty and responsibility not to allow such practices to continue.

Edward Davey: I shall be brief, because I think that the hon. Gentleman has dug such a large hole for himself that he has probably ended up somewhere in south Holland. He should reflect more carefully before tabling such amendments. Across the parties, we have a real battle across the parties next June against the British National party. I attended a conference in Halifax with Conservative and Labour Members to work out, cross- party, how to stand up to that very real threat. The idea that we could have a local authority run by the BNP holding such a power sends a shiver down our spines. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment without further debate.

Robert Syms: My hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings has stirred up much interest and debate with his amendment. We are basically talking about tests for extraordinary areas for selective licensing. Although the amendment's wording is inappropriate, my hon. Friend is trying to suggest that people who are transported to Britain to do very low-paid jobs tend to move to areas where there is surplus housing and low housing demand, where they are often exploited. With the expansion of the European Union, many people from eastern Europe are likely to come to the UK. They might not be familiar with conditions in the UK and their rights. In this debate we are trying to engender some reasonable tests.
 More generally, if one wants to consider whether an area has housing difficulties, one often has only to go and look at it. How much detailed information does 
 the Minister consider that a local authority needs to collect to obtain a designation for a selective licensing area? The factors listed are specific, including 
''the value of residential premises . . . turnover of occupiers of residential premises''
 and 
''the number of residential premises''.
 A degree of burden will be placed on the local authority to collect a lot of information, even though it is necessary only to look at an area to work out whether it should be designated. How much detail will be needed and what cost will the local authority have to bear? I acknowledge that costs would be attached to the amendment, but what level of research and background information do the Government expect? A few photographs would probably suffice to support an application by Burnley district council for some of their estates to go into a selective licensing area, while other areas would need to supply more information. 
 Will the Under-Secretary tell us a little more about how much money the Government expect local authorities to spend and how much research they should conduct before making an application? As the local authorities that apply will be from the most deprived areas, what compensation in the revenue support system will exist to assist such authorities in dealing with major problems in their areas?

Yvette Cooper: I will first address the issues around amendment No. 308. We have had an extensive debate, and many hon. Members have made clear the strong case against it. It would be inappropriate to add the proposed provision to the Bill and to try to achieve the intention behind the amendment moved by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings.
 Several hon. Members have pointed out the dangers of trying to designate areas on the basis of ethnicity or the number of British passport holders or asylum seekers. Given what the hon. Gentleman is attempting to achieve, it would be inappropriate to try to designate areas on such criteria and use a selective licensing mechanism in that way. It is true that there are areas with concentrations of vulnerable people; too often, they are also areas with the poorest housing, and often, but not always, areas of low demand. However, the most vulnerable can be concentrated in the poorest housing in areas of high demand as well. In trying to address a problem, we should concentrate on what it is. If the problem is overcrowding, we should debate overcrowding; if it is unsafe housing, we should debate that, as we did in when we discussed part 1 of the Bill. If the problem is about poor management by individual private landlords, we should talk about that when we reach clause 88; if it is about HMOs, we should talk about them. If the problem is the exploitation of vulnerable people, we need to identify what kind of exploitation that is. Is it covered by other aspects of the Bill? Is an additional sort of exploitation not covered? Is the problem with the law or with its enforcement? We need information to identify where a problem lies. 
 If refugees and asylum seekers face particular problems as a result of their legal or employment 
 status or their being particularly vulnerable, we should recognise and identify that. However, it would be deeply wrong and dangerous—and inappropriate and unworkable as a mechanism—to designate an area on the basis of the number of people facing problems within it. I recognise that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings is attempting to address the exploitation of vulnerable people, but I urge him to identify what the nature of the exploitation is and whether there is a gap in the law or in its enforcement in relation to those vulnerable people. I also urge him to recognise and properly identify the nature of the person's vulnerability, rather than simply trying to correlate vulnerability with the number of British passport holders in an area, or with other inappropriate factors. Attempting to do so risks promoting prejudice, discrimination and greater community tensions, which we all try to avoid. 
 The hon. Member for Poole asked about what local authorities need to take into account. As he says, that will often be extremely obvious in the case of a low-demand area. Identifying the price of a property relative to another area down the road will often be sufficient to show that it is in a low-demand area. We do not want to impose too great a burden and we should not need to, although we will need to keep an eye on the situation. Most local authorities are not raising that as a problem: they are desperate to get the power and think that they can use it effectively to identify the areas that they need to designate.

Robert Syms: It seems to me, therefore, that the tests are more likely to be used in attempts to revoke a designation than in attempts to make one. As the Under-Secretary said, if house prices have collapsed, the problem is perfectly obvious. However, if an area is improving, there might be an argument about the point at which a designation should be revoked. Some factors might then be more relevant.

Yvette Cooper: If the question of whether to revoke a licence were controversial, that that might be the case, but ultimately local authorities would need to take that decision. We have standard procedures for dealing with new burdens on local authorities. However, in practice I do not expect a huge burden to be placed on local authorities. The process will be relatively obvious and straightforward for them. If they think that the problem has gone away, well great—the designation can be revoked. I do not envisage the kind of problem that the hon. Gentleman anticipates. On that basis, I join other hon. Members in urging the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings to withdraw his amendment.

John Hayes: I am minded to withdraw the amendment for reasons that various hon. Members have argued. It would be too broad a brush and would have unacceptable consequences. That point was forcibly made by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee.
 However, the Under-Secretary made an interesting point about whether this is a problem of law, or its interpretation or application, or all three. There may 
 be insufficient powers to deal with the problem, there may be issues of interpretation, and there may be issues of application and resource. From what the local authorities that I deal with tell me, it may be all three. That is why I am pleased to have raised the point and to have stimulated such excitement in the Committee on what could otherwise have been a dull morning. I have clearly made my case, but take the point that this is probably not the best way to pursue it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Andrew Selous: I return to the issue of antisocial behaviour, which was raised by various embers of the Committee. I share hon. Members' concerns about tenants in isolated properties, but I accept that we will discuss that issue in our debates on later clauses.
 I have some questions for the Minister about subsection (6). Why is it so restrictive? Why does it refer only to private sector landlords and not registered social landlords? The diligence of local councils in taking action against the antisocial behaviour of tenants in their housing stock is variable, particularly where housing associations are concerned. I recently dealt with a case of antisocial behaviour in which housing associations behaved appallingly: letters were not responded to, nor were telephone calls to the solicitor representing the people who suffered from the antisocial behaviour. That is a deep discourtesy to me as the Member of Parliament taking up the issue. Can the Under-Secretary give me some comfort on this issue? 
 People suffering from antisocial behaviour are not remotely interested in the tenure of the people who are causing them suffering and disturbance. Clause 67 seems to show a reasonably heavy hand to private landlords, as do other parts of the Bill. I welcome that; we should be as tough as possible with private landlords who tolerate antisocial behaviour. But such behaviour is not restricted to that sector. We need seriously to consider this issue in relation to housing associations.

Brian Iddon: When I was the chairman of a housing committee, I got it to take the kind of action that the hon. Gentleman suggests, against people who were behaving antisocially in the council housing sector. That was a mistake, because after they were evicted by the council, they simply moved into a property owned by a private landlord around the corner on the same estate, where they carried on as usual. That was possible because we had sold a considerable number of council houses. It is not necessarily a solution.

Andrew Selous: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. Clearly that was not a solution in the case that he illustrated, but I seek equally strong measures to apply to all landlords and tenures, whether private, housing association or local authority. Clearly, it is not right that people who behave antisocially just go from one tenure to another. We need uniformity across the housing field, so that appropriate action can be taken wherever those people are.
 The hon. Gentleman has raised the broader question of where such people would eventually end up, but now is not the time for that debate, and you would not permit it, Mr. Conway. However, I will say that the behaviour of some housing associations is a serious problem. There is great variation. I have no doubt that some housing associations are extremely good, but others are not. There is one in my constituency—I will not name it now, although I reserve the right to do so—that has behaved appallingly. I still have steam coming out of my ears about that: it behaved very badly, and that has caused an unbelievable amount of distress. I would like to hear the Under-Secretary's comments on the subject.

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman has introduced an interesting aspect of the debate. I have come across registered social landlords who have not been very good at dealing with that type of tenant. I do not want to anticipate the Under-Secretary's reply, but I understand that best practice guidance is passed on to RSLs through the Housing Corporation and that they are supposed to develop those practices. The chief executives of the various housing associations that let properties in my constituency are aware of that, and I often raise it with them at our quarterly meetings. They have developed some very good practices. If the hon. Gentleman does not want to name the housing association that behaved so badly, he should write to the Housing Corporation about it, because I have seen some brilliant practice.
 I recently discussed this issue on a very august body, the Liberal Democrat housing policy group. One of the members of the group, Emily Gasson, is the head of the legal department at an RSL named South Somerset Homes: she has won an award for her work with her RSL in dealing with antisocial behaviour by tenants. She is working with others to improve the guidance on best practice. One feature of that is early intervention by officers, so that people—often children, but sometimes parents—are brought in and talked to and engaged with. That is better than letting things get out of hand and not getting involved: some RSLs stand back and wait for things to reach such a point that the police have to get involved. 
 I hope that we can deal with this problem if the Under-Secretary reassures us that she is working with the Housing Corporation to ensure that that best practice guidance is in place—and if she can confirm that the Housing Corporation is the body from which the hon. Gentleman should seek redress.

Andrew Selous: Do the hon. Gentleman and the Under-Secretary agree that one aspect of the best practice is that landlords of whatever tenure—RSLs, housing association landlords, local authority landlords or private landlords—feel that they have a duty of care not only to their tenants, but to the people in the neighbourhood whose lives are made a misery if those tenants behave in antisocial ways. There should be a shift: landlords should not only look at their tenants as their customers and think that that is the end of the matter; they should also take a broader view of what effect their tenants are having on the community. If we can get all types of landlords to
 get into that mindset, we will have made some progress.

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, with which I do not disagree. In my constituency work, it is not the rented sector in any form that is the real problem. If there is a landlord—RSL, council or private—there is someone to go against. However, if the antisocial behaviour is coming from someone in an owner-occupied dwelling, there can be huge problems. That must be thought through in terms of housing policy. I acknowledge that that point might be outside the scope of this debate. I notice that the Minister for Housing and Planning is pointing to somewhere in the Bill: I look forward to a future debate on this matter.

Yvette Cooper: I was just asking my right hon. Friend which bit of the Bill he is pointing at.
 The hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire raises an important point. Antisocial behaviour is not restricted to one type of tenure. The purpose of the Bill is to fill what has been called a gaping hole in the current framework of arrangements for helping landlords to address antisocial behaviour. It does not apply to RSLs because, as the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton said, there is already a mechanism for regulating them and for giving them powers and responsibilities to address antisocial behaviour. Their powers to deal with antisocial behaviour were recently increased as a result of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003. Concerns about their responses or about their failure to recognise their responsibilities should and can be taken up with the Housing Corporation and the housing ombudsman. 
 I urge the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire to raise the matter with Ministers if he has concerns about the operation of the Housing Corporation or about the housing ombudsman's ability to deal with his case. I know that the Housing Corporation takes this issue seriously, and there is a great deal of excellent practice out there. It is an aspect of the Housing Corporation's responsibilities that it is keen to develop. It is, however, right that we deal with RSLs by using that mechanism rather than by attempting to add a regulatory structure through local authorities. 
 The Bill attempts to address the problem of private sector landlords who, until now, have simply been missing from the picture. Good private sector landlords may take their responsibilities seriously. Until now, however, no one could do anything about private sector landlords who did not. As the hon. Gentleman says, it is right that private sector landlords, who are making money out of their properties in a community, should recognise their responsibilities to the rest of that community just as everyone else does, whether they are the local authority, the RSL, tenants or local residents. This is not the right point at which to enter a debate about owner-occupiers: the problems associated with owner-occupiers are serious, but a debate about them goes beyond the scope of the clause. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 67 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 68 - Designations under section 67:

Edward Davey: I beg to move amendment No. 288, in
clause 68, page 45, line 39, leave out 'both—'.

Derek Conway: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendment No. 287, in
clause 68, page 45, line 43, at end insert 
 ', and 
 (c) as regards its homelessness strategy and the provision of advice and assistance to those likely to be affected by the designation.'.

Edward Davey: I am grateful to Shelter for suggesting the amendment, which would lend the clause an important balance. We want to ensure that tenants' rights and opportunities are not harmed in any way when selective licensing is introduced. There was general agreement throughout the Committee on the need for selective licensing areas, for all the reasons that we debated. However, a new licensing regime could result in some landlords evicting tenants and in an increase in homelessness. I am sure that that is not what the Government intend or want. The question is therefore how we ensure a balance so that we do not get a perverse effect.
 Whenever a market is regulated, there is always a danger of unintended consequences. We must therefore ensure that the balance is right. I am generally impressed by how well the Government have done in achieving that, but the amendment would 
 ensure that the balance was well struck in relation to the potential for creating homelessness. The amendments would ensure that a local authority must have regard to its homelessness strategy, which it must create under other legislation, when it is considering designating an area under clause 67. The local authority must also ensure that it can provide advice and assistance to people who might be made homeless as a result of the designation, because a few individuals and families at the margins may suffer as a result of the landlord selling up or may be evicted for some reason. 
 I hope that the Under-Secretary has no problem with the amendment, which is not very controversial, but I will be interested to hear what she has to say.

Andrew Selous: We are talking about two types of homelessness. The first is the homelessness of people who are evicted but who have not committed antisocial behaviour. Whenever we discuss this issue, however, we must remember the people who are forced to leave their homes because of antisocial behaviour and the intolerable way in which they have to live. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the local authority should also consider that when designating an area.
 It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock. The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
 Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.